Louis Kessler’s Behold Blog The Behold User Forum
Louis Kessler (lkessler) Entries, Comments and Posts
371.
Sex in GEDCOM - Blog entry by lkessler - 14 Jan 2016
I have come across a need to check out the SEX tag in GEDCOM. Some of the new DNA features I’m finishing up for the next version of Behold make important use of the sex of the individual. Determining autosomal, X, Y and mitochondrial DNA shares between two individuals is much less accurate when the sex of ...
373.
2016 and Looking Forward - Blog entry by lkessler - 2 Jan 2016
It’s a new year. I was very happy to complete the tabulation of the GenSoftReviews Users Choice Awards for 2015 and send out the Press Release about it, which so far only James Tanner has posted about it (also here). Usually that takes me a full day to take the results, make up the new badges, and manually ...
374.
Everything In, Nothing Out - Not Helpful for DNA. - Blog entry by lkessler - 26 Dec 2015
Do you an amass everything you can that might be related to your genealogy research? You have books in your library. File cabinets full of articles and clippings. Closets with boxes of unsorted picture albums and scrapbooks with letters and ephemera. Videos still on VHS and super 8. You’ll get to it someday. ...
375.
A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by lkessler - 24 Dec 2015
Thanks for the ideas, Rob. I was thinking about using lower case for descendants and upper case for ancestors as you suggest. Instead of "?", I was thinking of Z and z. And that would be good for an extension of this notation.
But my specific purpose for this notation is to identify the DNA relationship. For ...
376.
A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by lkessler - 21 Dec 2015
Thank you for this Justin. Do you know if the system is documented and formalized anywhere, or is it an informal system you all use?.
It is a bit different in goal because I'm aiming at DNA relationship mapping for the purpose of stating just blood relationships and the expected percentage of DNA shared, so ...
377.
A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by lkessler - 20 Dec 2015
Actually, the bottom of: http://gcbias.org/2013/12/02/how-many-genomic-blocks-do-you-share-with-a-cousin/ gets into the sort of thing I would look for, and it describes the Poisson distribution of shared blocks in a genomic region. My stats background would allow me to do the calculations necessary.
But ...
378.
A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by lkessler - 20 Dec 2015
Rob: I was looking into possibly giving ranges of percentages. I did look for, but was unable to find any statistics about the random nature of how DNA combines. If I had some theoretical study that estimated the combinatorial probabilities, then I might be willing to include ranges using that.
But I don't ...
379.
A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by lkessler - 20 Dec 2015
Tony:
Getting me to think again, aren't you.
The purpose of this notation is to precisely define a known relationship between two people, so I wasn't thinking of determining the relationship from the DNA.
However, the wonderful byproduct is that this notation could now make that possible. With the ...
380.
A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by lkessler - 20 Dec 2015
I really like your ideas, Rob. I was originally thinking of maybe using a different letter, or a different color, or maybe bold text. But parenthesis is better because it can be transferred as raw text and has the advantage of being able to include both common ancestors if desired as in: XYX(XY)XY. I've now ...
Prev 361-370
A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by lkessler - 5 Jan 2016